I believe abortion is wrong and should not be legal. The pro-abortion side says that a woman should have a choice to decide if her baby should live . In response to this arguement I have two points 1.women had never had this choice till now and 2.even if they call the baby a fetus it does not change the fact that if the "fetus" was not aborted there would be one more person alive

I believe that abortion is morally, ethically and legally correct and support it for the following reasons- abortion is a safe procedure. Vast majority of women have abortion in their first trimester and undergo no risk. Secondly, the ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization? Now in response to the opposition's argument, I would like to say that a fetus cannot exit independently. It's health is dependent on mother's health and so cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside the womb. Therefore, abortion does not take away any life.

The opponent made a good point in his last arguement that the "fetuses"(or unborn baby's) health is tied to the mothers . However this does not change the fact that if a fetus was aborted there would be one less person alive . So what we really need to define life . My opponent obviously does not consider a fetus as life . However it does not change fact that abortion is eliminating a ,"future human"(to use the opponents terms). This is where I should ask what about the unborn baby's right no one would suggest that it is right,legal,and moral to take the life of a human baby or "unborn baby". I am interested to see how my opponent responds

Life is defined by dictionary.com as "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." While we can be assured that a fetus has neither of these characteristics, the opposition here considers fetus as life. However, not deviating from the topic of debate I would respond to the opposition's argument by saying that a mother knows best when to bring her child in this world. If she chooses not to produce that baby, that just shows that she feels that she cannot provide the baby with basic living conditions. Therefore, abortion does not take away any lives, on the contrary it saves two- one of the child who if had been born would live under such dire circumstances that death would come as a welcome to him and of the mother who with one more mouth to feed would have to resort to illegal activities to pay off her debts.

Now for my argument, I would like you to imagine how America was before 1990s. Crime had gone up by 80%. Economy was in a bad shape. And then came Roe vs wade- the historic decision that changed it all. After it, there was some 1.6 million abortions every year. And what sort of woman would take advantage of Roe vs Wade? Very often she was unmarried, in her teens or poor and sometimes all three. One study showed that a child who was unborn had 60% more than average chances of living in poverty and 65% more likely to grow up with one parent. And these 2 factors constitute the biggest predictor of the child having a criminal future. In other words, the very factor that drove many Americans to have an abortion also seemed to predict that had their children been born, they would have led unhappy and possibly criminal lives. And till now Roe vs Wade has been recognized as the single biggest factor in the decline of crime in America.
So apart from reducing crime Roe vs Wade gave voice to what mothers had long known: when a woman does not want to have a child she has a good reason for it.
Therefore, abortion not only gives mothers reproductive rights; something which is essential for her but also reduces crime. And so it should continue for the better of the society.

If I understand correctly, last arguement my opponent made the point that a mother should be able to choose whether to give birth to her child or not. From what I understood this was the bulk of his arguement. I will spend time rebuking that and then making my own arguement. The reason I disagree with my opponents reasoning is because, I believe a very blunt and frank view of his arguement would show that it is not morally sound. My opponents logic is as follows , a woman has reproduction rights, so she should be able to decide whether she should give birth to her child or abort the child. Here my opponent seems to be suggesting that the mother has the right to decide whether her "fetus"(which would grow to be a regular human being ) should live or be aborted. My opponent brings the fact that the situation may have some justification to why a mother may want to abort. However I will bring up the fact that I and many people I know , know people who after abortions have stricken consciences, because they understand that if they had not aborted their child they would be alive now. Now for my arguement . I believe abortion is wrong because you are killing something that grows to be a human. I believe that God created humans in his image. My opponent should understand that from a Christian worldview (which I represent ) abortion is detestable because it is taking something that is made in the image of God.

From the very beginning, opposition has stuck with a mere single argument( for the lack of a better one) that abortion is illegal as it is killing someone. However, the opposition seems to continuously ignore what I am saying. In my previous argument I showed that had these children bee born they would have great chances of having a criminal future. That means that one single human being can grow up take many lives. Therefore, in an attempt to save one life we are sacrificing the security of man which I am sure you will all agree is just ridiculous. And for the so called christian worldview that the side opposition seems to represent, i am sure even Jesus Christ will agree to not have a child born and save many lives than save the life of that one child and put many others in a state of jeopardy.
Now for my final argument in this debate, abortion helps a woman who is raped to shell out that memory. For had that baby been born, it would have constantly reminded her of the abuse and the harsh times she went through. Moreover, abortion has significantly reduced teenage mothers as I have shown in my round 2. Also , abortion can also be seen as relieving the child of misery that would have been inevitably suffered in the future. Usually, the mother who is looking to have the abortion is very inexperienced and young to take good care of the baby. As a result, the baby will be malnourished with no medical care while getting little love or attention. The system of foster care is not any better with only a very small percentage of children adopted by suitable parents. The rest of the children remain in this foster care system that has very little personal care.
In both cases, these children will have very poor education due to the lack of discipline and attention. They usually grow up to be unproductive people with some being a menace to the immediate society. These people are also quite violent and lack morality because of the insignificant amount of care that they received themselves. Eventually, the child suffers greatly as well as the society which has to tolerate these violent crimes and behaviors.
Therefore, abortion not only is imperative to ensure that the mother is happy but also ensures that criminals who otherwise wrong the society are never born in the first place and so makes the world a better place for the existing few.

Reasons for voting decision: Con starts off with a shaky second round, conceding/dropping all of Pro's arguments from the previous round, and shifting the debate to a new viewpoint, whether or not a fetus counts as life. Pro successfully refuted this as well, showing differences between the definition of life, and the characteristics of a fetus, this also was never refuted by Con, who moved on to an appeal to emotion, simply stating that "some people" they knew had stricken consciences. This is not sufficient evidence, as Con fails to explain why this means abortion should be illegal for ALL women. Con also fails to refute Pro's argument about crime rates, for which Pro had cited many studies. Con's final argument was that abortion is detestable from a "Christian worldview," however fails to explain why a Christian worldview should govern the law for ALL women. Throughout this debate, Con dropped all of Pro's arguments, and simply stuck to their own one argument, which was refuted by Pro. Arguments to Pro.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.